MENLO PARK -- Facebook found itself in a fresh controversy over a graphically violent video Tuesday, as the world's largest social networking company changed its mind -- twice -- on an earlier decision to block the posting of a clip showing a person being beheaded.

Facing a fierce public outcry after allowing the video to return, the company said late Tuesday that it had removed the posting. But the episode underscored the recurring difficulties that popular online sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Google's (GOOG) YouTube have in weighing whether to let users share potentially offensive or even horrifying material.

"Every step along the way, Facebook is making a series of judgments about the appropriateness of content for its audience," said Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University. "There is no way for Facebook to make all of its users completely happy about its editorial choices."

Website operators have confronted similar dilemmas since the dawn of the Internet. But while most Internet companies promote the Web as a forum for free speech, many have struggled with hosting offensive material, even after developing extensive policies and employing squadrons of content reviewers and lawyers to implement them.

Advertisement

Facebook, for example, has been criticized in recent months for censoring artistic depictions of a woman's breast, and for allowing sites that seem to celebrate violent acts against women. YouTube, meanwhile, found itself weighing requests last year from several governments to block an anti-Islamic video that showed the Prophet Muhammad as a dishonest womanizer.

YouTube ultimately kept that video online, while agreeing to block it in a few countries. As for depictions of violence, a YouTube representative said Tuesday: "While YouTube's guidelines generally prohibit graphic or violent content, we make exceptions for material with documentary or news value. In cases where a video is not suitable for all viewers, we're careful to apply warnings and age restrictions."

Most sites attempt to follow laws in the countries where they operate, Goldman noted. Google's German site reportedly blocks Nazi propaganda that's outlawed in that country, while Google's U.S. users may be able to find the same material. But some kinds of offensive or even graphic material aren't illegal.

Facebook's newest controversy involves a video of a masked man beheading a woman, one of two graphically violent clips that first appeared on the social network last spring. Although they drew complaints from several users in the United Kingdom, the BBC reported that Facebook initially declined to remove the clips, which purportedly showed drug smugglers in Mexico.

While its policies prohibit "graphic or gratuitous violence," Facebook told the BBC last spring that it would allow the clips because people were sharing them as a way of condemning the violence they depicted. After several days of public outcry, however, Facebook reversed itself and took the videos down.

After the beheading video resurfaced last week, the BBC reported Monday that the social network issued a new explanation for allowing the clip that was similar to the one offered in May.

"If the video were being celebrated or the actions in it encouraged, our approach would be different," Facebook reportedly said.

That sparked renewed criticism from several quarters. British Prime Minister David Cameron called Facebook "irresponsible" in a Twitter message Tuesday, adding: "They must explain their actions to worried parents."

Also critical was Stephen Balkam of the Family Online Safety Institute, a nonprofit in the United States. Balkam, who serves on a Facebook advisory board, said he complained about the video last spring and was surprised and upset to see it resurface. When he found it on Facebook this week, Balkam said, "I didn't see any educational or socially useful message."

Late Tuesday, Facebook issued a new statement saying it had re-examined the posting and "concluded that this content improperly and irresponsibly glorifies violence. For this reason, we have removed it."

Facebook also pledged to take "a more holistic look at the context" of graphic content, including whether it's been shared "responsibly" with appropriate warnings. But the company signaled it may still allow violent images in some cases.

"People turn to Facebook to share their experiences and to raise awareness about issues important to them," the company said. "When people share this type of graphic content, it is often to condemn it. If it is being shared for sadistic pleasure or to celebrate violence, Facebook removes it."

Balkam praised the takedown decision after Facebook representatives told him the company is developing procedures for adding warnings to graphic material. He added, "I think there's probably been a vigorous debate within the company as to why this was up there and why it should be taken down."

Contact Brandon Bailey at 408-920-5022; follow him at Twitter.com/BrandonBailey.